On Friday, 24 June 2016 7:35:12 AM AEST Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-06-24 at 02:11 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> You can also do "git log --not upstream/master" (or whichever branch
> you like) and it will omit commits which are present on the named
> branch.
>
> I'm pretty sure gitk obeys this too, not sure about gitg but this
> functionality ultimately comes from "git rev-list" which I suppose most
> tools like this use (except perhaps the web based ones don't expose it
> so fully).
It works with "gitg" too. Thanks for the hint.
However in my opinion this is where complexity of work flow stands in the way
of packaging because not only maintainer have to be competent with
understanding how Debian packaging works but also be profoundly competent
with GBP and git. I remember time when I was struggling with git and having
overly sophisticated packaging work flow certainly does not help to care for
packages.

Indeed it is not that difficult to isolate packaging commits, provided that
you know how to do it. But if you don't then wasted time and frustration is
almost inevitable.
Another reason why upstream commits history in "master" annoys me is because
it breaks "gbp dch" command that populates "changelog" with all upstream
changes. I imagine there might be workaround for this too but I'd rather
spend my time fixing bugs than looking for workarounds to sub-optimal work
flow...
--
Regards,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
-- David Hume, "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding"